Humanity appears to be hard-wired to seek a structure of leadership directed by others. From what I can tell, the Israelites had a fairly functional (if imperfect) system of doing life together and yet they went to Samuel and said, “Now we want a king to be our leader, just like all the other nations. Choose one for us!” 1 Samuel 5.
How, after several millennia, we still want that, I have no clue. It looks different, but it’s brought us exactly what God said it would.
For our current time, I think it is fair to replace the term ‘king’ with the word ‘government.’ To paraphrase God's warning through Samuel: The government will conscript your sons and use them to increase power over others. The government will take your daughters and bend their minds and bodies to submit to authority and promote the government's influence over generations. And your property will become the governments. The government will take a tenth—no, make that a half—of everything you create. Therefore, you will be half slaves but allowed to live (and die) only as the governing authority sees fit.
I for one would like to head over to Samuel’s place and tell him we are good with decentralized authority and self governance (my utopia) We’ll agree to, oh I don't know, maybe only ten basic laws. If there is no victim—there is no crime. Eventually the general assumption of non-aggression will fail. And when it does, several witnesses are mandatory (held to truth or consequences) and principled, accountable judges must act to seek restitution for those wronged.
It's not Singapore, and it’s not the western model, but it sure would be closer to the utopia we should always strive for. Heck, I’ll even chip in to build the roads.
I understand the attraction of what looks like a stable, prosperous city-state. If a utopia is to include freedom of thought and speech, though, Singapore is not a model. I recommend reading the book "Spin Dictators," by Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman, to get an understanding of how Lee initially shut down press freedoms, limited protests, and made sure to crack down on unions in order to achieve his goals.
From the preface: "Instead of terrorizing citizens, a skillful ruler can control them by reshaping their beliefs about the world. He can fool people into compliance and even enthusiastic approval. In place of harsh repression, the new dictators manipulate information."
Technocrats can achieve plenty if they pose a high cost to opposition and tightly control media narratives, and a balanced view would have to include many more perspectives aside Lee's own book.
Yes, I understand that freedom of speech is a biggie, and certainly something that I think is essential to a utopia. But I think it's possible to learn from the good things other countries are doing, while avoiding the bad things other countries are doing. And Singapore is doing a few things right, not just according to Lee, but according to international organizations.
I think you are too generous in thinking businesses make data driven decisions. Maybe 1% or2%. Most do not have data or do not know what to do with it. Your work experience at Google is the exception.
Another business model is the co-operatively owned business. Here is a story on perhaps the best known and most successful....
Yes, I'm probably more specifically thinking about the tech industry (which I cover a lot of as a journalist.) Thank you for the link about co-ops! I'll do some research to that effect this week!
Jan 16, 2023·edited Jan 16, 2023Liked by Elle Griffin
Having worked in both the private sector and the voluntary sector, this is a discussion I've had all sorts of times, in various ways. At times when working for a charity I despaired at the lack of efficiency, and the reliance on project funding which prevented long-term planning. Pre-approved funding meant that end results often didn't seem to really matter, as long as the boxes were ticked.
On the other hand, the people in that sector are the hardest working and most committed people I've ever met. They change lives, for very little reward, despite the infrastructural inefficiencies.
The private sector when it's firing on all cylinders is fast, efficient, targeted. But it can also be bloated, slow, old fashioned and reactionary. When markets change, companies rarely change with them - instead a new company arises to take the lead, while the old companies simply die. Survival of the fittest might sometimes work out OK in the context of private companies (if you ignore redundancies), but that'd be bad news for a government.
I get the theory that you're talking about here, Elle, but I think it's based on a very optimistic view of how the private sector (and capitalism) works. Which, I know, is part of utopian thinking. :)
I don't know enough about Singapore to comment on their setup (I did visit briefly once in the late-90s, and it was an amazing place). I do find it interesting that after the careful hunt for a worthy, qualified successor, leadership then passed immediately to the son of that ruler. That seems slightly counter to the established principles.
Yes, you are right that there are inefficiencies in the public sector, just as there is a cutthroat quality to the private sector. I don't know what the middle ground is between the two.
As far as countries are concerned, that's why my solution was to make them less big. (The country provides only basic resources like military, healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc.) while the city is empowered to be its own government (like Singapore). It's not perfect. It's just me trying to learn from the best while trying to avoid the pitfalls of the worst.
Fascinating piece and I learned a lot I didn’t know. I’ve always been irritated when I see ballot questions about policy changes when I vote; I think to myself, “how should I know? Isn’t that why we elect a legislature, so you all can study this and decide?”
I do wonder the degree to which a (mostly) ethnically homogenous society makes possible what Singapore (or for that matter, Denmark or Sweden) is doing. That the U.S. is such a large, pluralistic, multi-ethnic country -- and with our history of slavery, segregation and discrimination -- and we still are able to more or less make it work seems like a miracle when you think about it.
What in Singapore is the glue that creates the social trust that makes their system possible, do you think?
Interestingly, Singapore is not ethnically homogeneous—they are multiracial and multi ethnic (Chinese–Malay–Indian–Other), speak four languages of which English is the official language (English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil), and they represent four major religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, and Hinduism).
When the country was getting started this was a major hurdle, and it's really interesting to read Lee's book and learn how he tackled that. At the beginning, there were a lot of uprisings from communist groups who still wanted the country to be Malay, and, rather than quell them, Lee took early steps to make sure all groups were represented in the government, and the military, to prevent further uprisings.
The country had open borders until the 2010s when their infrastructure started to get overwhelmed. As a result, they are truly a global citizenry! (And that makes me wonder if the US might be able to accomplish the same if we had more representation in positions of power. We'd probably make different decisions too.)
As I said, not a panacea. That being said, I think small moments like that have haunted the American imagination, causing us to see the island nation in a more negative light than we should—even with its faults, it is still one of the most sought after places to live in Asia, as well as the world.
I am not for someone being caned for vandalizing cars, but I am also not for a police officer killing someone for using a counterfeit twenty dollar bill. And using those incidents as an inditement on our countries might be telling of our stance toward corporal punishment, but they also might not show the full picture of our governments.
Also Singapore is hardly behind the iron curtain—they fought for independence against the communists and that's how they became their own country!
Humanity appears to be hard-wired to seek a structure of leadership directed by others. From what I can tell, the Israelites had a fairly functional (if imperfect) system of doing life together and yet they went to Samuel and said, “Now we want a king to be our leader, just like all the other nations. Choose one for us!” 1 Samuel 5.
How, after several millennia, we still want that, I have no clue. It looks different, but it’s brought us exactly what God said it would.
For our current time, I think it is fair to replace the term ‘king’ with the word ‘government.’ To paraphrase God's warning through Samuel: The government will conscript your sons and use them to increase power over others. The government will take your daughters and bend their minds and bodies to submit to authority and promote the government's influence over generations. And your property will become the governments. The government will take a tenth—no, make that a half—of everything you create. Therefore, you will be half slaves but allowed to live (and die) only as the governing authority sees fit.
I for one would like to head over to Samuel’s place and tell him we are good with decentralized authority and self governance (my utopia) We’ll agree to, oh I don't know, maybe only ten basic laws. If there is no victim—there is no crime. Eventually the general assumption of non-aggression will fail. And when it does, several witnesses are mandatory (held to truth or consequences) and principled, accountable judges must act to seek restitution for those wronged.
It's not Singapore, and it’s not the western model, but it sure would be closer to the utopia we should always strive for. Heck, I’ll even chip in to build the roads.
This data-feedback/metrics system is basically what Andrew Yang wanted, but most people ignored him as a candidate.
All of his books are worth reading, especially his first one. I’ve read all of them. Highly recommend.
Interesting!
God forbid!!! https://growingupboomer.net/2022/08/31/the-moment-america-lost-its-moral-center/
The fact that there isn't free speech or freedom of the press in Singapore, to me, casts doubt on the high approval ratings...
That part certainly isn't utopian! But I do find Gallup a credible source.
I understand the attraction of what looks like a stable, prosperous city-state. If a utopia is to include freedom of thought and speech, though, Singapore is not a model. I recommend reading the book "Spin Dictators," by Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman, to get an understanding of how Lee initially shut down press freedoms, limited protests, and made sure to crack down on unions in order to achieve his goals.
From the preface: "Instead of terrorizing citizens, a skillful ruler can control them by reshaping their beliefs about the world. He can fool people into compliance and even enthusiastic approval. In place of harsh repression, the new dictators manipulate information."
Technocrats can achieve plenty if they pose a high cost to opposition and tightly control media narratives, and a balanced view would have to include many more perspectives aside Lee's own book.
Yes, I understand that freedom of speech is a biggie, and certainly something that I think is essential to a utopia. But I think it's possible to learn from the good things other countries are doing, while avoiding the bad things other countries are doing. And Singapore is doing a few things right, not just according to Lee, but according to international organizations.
I think you are too generous in thinking businesses make data driven decisions. Maybe 1% or2%. Most do not have data or do not know what to do with it. Your work experience at Google is the exception.
Another business model is the co-operatively owned business. Here is a story on perhaps the best known and most successful....
https://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2012/mar/12/cooperatives-spain-mondragon
The similarity between Mondragon and Singapore that may best be an indicator is population size. Also, lack of defense funding.
Yes, I'm probably more specifically thinking about the tech industry (which I cover a lot of as a journalist.) Thank you for the link about co-ops! I'll do some research to that effect this week!
Having worked in both the private sector and the voluntary sector, this is a discussion I've had all sorts of times, in various ways. At times when working for a charity I despaired at the lack of efficiency, and the reliance on project funding which prevented long-term planning. Pre-approved funding meant that end results often didn't seem to really matter, as long as the boxes were ticked.
On the other hand, the people in that sector are the hardest working and most committed people I've ever met. They change lives, for very little reward, despite the infrastructural inefficiencies.
The private sector when it's firing on all cylinders is fast, efficient, targeted. But it can also be bloated, slow, old fashioned and reactionary. When markets change, companies rarely change with them - instead a new company arises to take the lead, while the old companies simply die. Survival of the fittest might sometimes work out OK in the context of private companies (if you ignore redundancies), but that'd be bad news for a government.
I get the theory that you're talking about here, Elle, but I think it's based on a very optimistic view of how the private sector (and capitalism) works. Which, I know, is part of utopian thinking. :)
I don't know enough about Singapore to comment on their setup (I did visit briefly once in the late-90s, and it was an amazing place). I do find it interesting that after the careful hunt for a worthy, qualified successor, leadership then passed immediately to the son of that ruler. That seems slightly counter to the established principles.
Yes, you are right that there are inefficiencies in the public sector, just as there is a cutthroat quality to the private sector. I don't know what the middle ground is between the two.
As far as countries are concerned, that's why my solution was to make them less big. (The country provides only basic resources like military, healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc.) while the city is empowered to be its own government (like Singapore). It's not perfect. It's just me trying to learn from the best while trying to avoid the pitfalls of the worst.
Fascinating piece and I learned a lot I didn’t know. I’ve always been irritated when I see ballot questions about policy changes when I vote; I think to myself, “how should I know? Isn’t that why we elect a legislature, so you all can study this and decide?”
I do wonder the degree to which a (mostly) ethnically homogenous society makes possible what Singapore (or for that matter, Denmark or Sweden) is doing. That the U.S. is such a large, pluralistic, multi-ethnic country -- and with our history of slavery, segregation and discrimination -- and we still are able to more or less make it work seems like a miracle when you think about it.
What in Singapore is the glue that creates the social trust that makes their system possible, do you think?
Right??? Let the experts decide! 🤓
Interestingly, Singapore is not ethnically homogeneous—they are multiracial and multi ethnic (Chinese–Malay–Indian–Other), speak four languages of which English is the official language (English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil), and they represent four major religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, and Hinduism).
When the country was getting started this was a major hurdle, and it's really interesting to read Lee's book and learn how he tackled that. At the beginning, there were a lot of uprisings from communist groups who still wanted the country to be Malay, and, rather than quell them, Lee took early steps to make sure all groups were represented in the government, and the military, to prevent further uprisings.
The country had open borders until the 2010s when their infrastructure started to get overwhelmed. As a result, they are truly a global citizenry! (And that makes me wonder if the US might be able to accomplish the same if we had more representation in positions of power. We'd probably make different decisions too.)
As I said, not a panacea. That being said, I think small moments like that have haunted the American imagination, causing us to see the island nation in a more negative light than we should—even with its faults, it is still one of the most sought after places to live in Asia, as well as the world.
I am not for someone being caned for vandalizing cars, but I am also not for a police officer killing someone for using a counterfeit twenty dollar bill. And using those incidents as an inditement on our countries might be telling of our stance toward corporal punishment, but they also might not show the full picture of our governments.
Also Singapore is hardly behind the iron curtain—they fought for independence against the communists and that's how they became their own country!